Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8
Discussion
Earthdweller said:
Welshbeef said:
Um more tax money spent in Scotland per capita than anywhere else in the U.K. (the poorest Wales and N Ireland get the least). Not really FAIR is it - and then to rub salt into the would give free education to EU and Scottish born but charge RUK. I meant you’ve got a lot of front.
Then Scotland’s deficit 2018/19 year £15billion, U.K. as a TOTAL £23billion deficit.
So in addition to paying more to your citizens your not even remotely brining in enough tax for it and forcing future generations of the U.K. to pay for your excesses.
Given Income tax is £11 billion in its entirety and way over half the working population in Scotland work in the public sector & the U.K. subs out lots of work to Scotland for those public sector workers. I just wonder what jobs and where the £ or €$¥ will come from to pay for the future?
In simple terms Then Scotland’s deficit 2018/19 year £15billion, U.K. as a TOTAL £23billion deficit.
So in addition to paying more to your citizens your not even remotely brining in enough tax for it and forcing future generations of the U.K. to pay for your excesses.
Given Income tax is £11 billion in its entirety and way over half the working population in Scotland work in the public sector & the U.K. subs out lots of work to Scotland for those public sector workers. I just wonder what jobs and where the £ or €$¥ will come from to pay for the future?
The books don’t balance .. Scotland is not self sustaining and is reliant on rUK
Standing alone, it is not sustainable in its current form
Scotland receives income from Scottish taxes and the block grant.
Self-sustaining doesn't come into it.
Welshbeef said:
Earthdweller said:
In simple terms
The books don’t balance .. Scotland is not self sustaining and is reliant on rUK
Standing alone, it is not sustainable in its current form
From 1707 to 2019 it would be interesting how many years they were actually in the black - especially if all the decommissioning of the oil rigs were taking into consideration plus the bailout of the Caledonian experiment plus Bank of Scotland Royal Bank of Scotland. Also if Faslane had never been built all those high paying jobs The books don’t balance .. Scotland is not self sustaining and is reliant on rUK
Standing alone, it is not sustainable in its current form
Let's also look at the revenue from oil which the UK squandered. Remember that Scotland is the only country in the world to find oil and be poorer...
rossub said:
The Mad Monk said:
There are some things the Jocks do.
There are some things the Jocks DON'T do.
The most important thing that Jocks DON'T do is happy.
It's just not in their psyche.
If you had to put up with fThere are some things the Jocks DON'T do.
The most important thing that Jocks DON'T do is happy.
It's just not in their psyche.
king Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, you wouldn't be happy either 
glazbagun said:
Welshbeef said:
Earthdweller said:
In simple terms
The books don’t balance .. Scotland is not self sustaining and is reliant on rUK
Standing alone, it is not sustainable in its current form
From 1707 to 2019 it would be interesting how many years they were actually in the black - especially if all the decommissioning of the oil rigs were taking into consideration plus the bailout of the Caledonian experiment plus Bank of Scotland Royal Bank of Scotland. Also if Faslane had never been built all those high paying jobs The books don’t balance .. Scotland is not self sustaining and is reliant on rUK
Standing alone, it is not sustainable in its current form
The Mad Monk said:
simoid said:
We know the SNP are operating on a different plane of reality to the rest of us with their financial figures - but today their finance spokesperson said we should stop focusing on money and concentrate on happiness! You couldn’t make it up 
There are some things the Jocks do.There are some things the Jocks DON'T do.
The most important thing that Jocks DON'T do is happy.
It's just not in their psyche.
Edinburger said:
Let's pretend for a minute you're a married man. 2.4 kids, nice house and a Ford Focus in the drive. Decent job and a happy life.
One day, your wife tells you she's really unhappy. You discuss this at length and discuss the pros and cons of separation and eventually, you both agree to go for counselling. So you spend a lot of time with a marriage guidance counseller and eventually agree how you both need to change and adapt your behaviours and you agree to stay together and have another go of it.
Things are going well for a few years and then out of the blue your wife mentions over dinner that she's realised she is bi-sexual and wants to have an affair with her girlfriend and actually she wants her to move in wth you and your family.
Now - boy'ish bravado and sexual masculinity aside - that is a fundamental change to your marriage.
Are you both entitled to re-consider the validity of this marriage? Would you expect your counsellor to say to you "no, no, you decided to stay together a few years ago when we spoke so that's the end of it"?
No, you wouldn't. See my point?
I’ll run with your analogy.One day, your wife tells you she's really unhappy. You discuss this at length and discuss the pros and cons of separation and eventually, you both agree to go for counselling. So you spend a lot of time with a marriage guidance counseller and eventually agree how you both need to change and adapt your behaviours and you agree to stay together and have another go of it.
Things are going well for a few years and then out of the blue your wife mentions over dinner that she's realised she is bi-sexual and wants to have an affair with her girlfriend and actually she wants her to move in wth you and your family.
Now - boy'ish bravado and sexual masculinity aside - that is a fundamental change to your marriage.
Are you both entitled to re-consider the validity of this marriage? Would you expect your counsellor to say to you "no, no, you decided to stay together a few years ago when we spoke so that's the end of it"?
No, you wouldn't. See my point?
The wife has always been bisexual, though. It was quite obvious in 2014 and asking her in 2016 doesn’t make her any more bisexual. If we didn’t want to be together, we shouldn’t have chosen it in 2014.
And anyway, the obvious flaw in the analogy is that a marriage is an ongoing situation. We had a once in a lifetime referendum, the result of which was agreed by all sides to be respected.
Edinburger said:
Jeez.
Let's also look at the revenue from oil which the UK squandered. Remember that Scotland is the only country in the world to find oil and be poorer...
That sounds like an SNP/business for Scotland line. I googled it and got this article:Let's also look at the revenue from oil which the UK squandered. Remember that Scotland is the only country in the world to find oil and be poorer...
Oil will form part of Scotland’s many economic strengths after independence.
For some reason there’s a 404 error on it!?
simoid said:
Edinburger said:
Let's pretend for a minute you're a married man. 2.4 kids, nice house and a Ford Focus in the drive. Decent job and a happy life.
One day, your wife tells you she's really unhappy. You discuss this at length and discuss the pros and cons of separation and eventually, you both agree to go for counselling. So you spend a lot of time with a marriage guidance counseller and eventually agree how you both need to change and adapt your behaviours and you agree to stay together and have another go of it.
Things are going well for a few years and then out of the blue your wife mentions over dinner that she's realised she is bi-sexual and wants to have an affair with her girlfriend and actually she wants her to move in wth you and your family.
Now - boy'ish bravado and sexual masculinity aside - that is a fundamental change to your marriage.
Are you both entitled to re-consider the validity of this marriage? Would you expect your counsellor to say to you "no, no, you decided to stay together a few years ago when we spoke so that's the end of it"?
No, you wouldn't. See my point?
I’ll run with your analogy.One day, your wife tells you she's really unhappy. You discuss this at length and discuss the pros and cons of separation and eventually, you both agree to go for counselling. So you spend a lot of time with a marriage guidance counseller and eventually agree how you both need to change and adapt your behaviours and you agree to stay together and have another go of it.
Things are going well for a few years and then out of the blue your wife mentions over dinner that she's realised she is bi-sexual and wants to have an affair with her girlfriend and actually she wants her to move in wth you and your family.
Now - boy'ish bravado and sexual masculinity aside - that is a fundamental change to your marriage.
Are you both entitled to re-consider the validity of this marriage? Would you expect your counsellor to say to you "no, no, you decided to stay together a few years ago when we spoke so that's the end of it"?
No, you wouldn't. See my point?
The wife has always been bisexual, though. It was quite obvious in 2014 and asking her in 2016 doesn’t make her any more bisexual. If we didn’t want to be together, we shouldn’t have chosen it in 2014.
And anyway, the obvious flaw in the analogy is that a marriage is an ongoing situation. We had a once in a lifetime referendum, the result of which was agreed by all sides to be respected.
She warned you, it's not her fault you didn't listen
CambsBill said:
Edinburger said:
Jeez.
Let's also look at the revenue from oil which the UK squandered. Remember that Scotland is the only country in the world to find oil and be poorer...
Never heard of Venezuela then Let's also look at the revenue from oil which the UK squandered. Remember that Scotland is the only country in the world to find oil and be poorer...
technodup said:
It's just a snidey wee Nat soundbite. You're not supposed to question it. 
Along with 'Brexit changed everything'. 'Burger rhymes off the SNat soundbite playbook verbatim and always pops up with the SNP squirrel of the day, yet still claims not to be a party apparatchik.If he isn't (as he claims) he does a mighty fine impersonation of one. Practically indistinguishable from the real thing.
Edited by Evercross on Tuesday 12th November 11:40
CambsBill said:
CambsBill said:
Edinburger said:
Jeez.
Let's also look at the revenue from oil which the UK squandered. Remember that Scotland is the only country in the world to find oil and be poorer...
Never heard of Venezuela then Let's also look at the revenue from oil which the UK squandered. Remember that Scotland is the only country in the world to find oil and be poorer...
There’s a thing called “Dutch Disease” or “Resource curse” which is an interesting read as to why nations with natural resources squander or waste them
The Mad Monk said:
rossub said:
The Mad Monk said:
There are some things the Jocks do.
There are some things the Jocks DON'T do.
The most important thing that Jocks DON'T do is happy.
It's just not in their psyche.
If you had to put up with fThere are some things the Jocks DON'T do.
The most important thing that Jocks DON'T do is happy.
It's just not in their psyche.
king Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, you wouldn't be happy either Edinburger said:
simoid said:
Edinburger said:
simoid said:
Edinburger said:
I was working in London for a few days this week and a few colleagues were asking about this. Their opinion was that the Scots should get another independence referendum because we voted to remain part of the UK within Europe and that's about to change.
Hard to argue with them.
Not really difficult.Hard to argue with them.
That was a known risk when we voted in our once in a lifetime referendum. Just like oil revenues collapsing, Salmond turning out to be a bare faced liar, Trump getting in and taxing hell out of Whisky, etc. We took the risk that we wouldn’t agree with everything that happened whether we were in or out of UK.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff